Talk:325
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
Simulacrum (Talk | contribs) (→Against) |
||
| (20 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Proposer's summary and declarations == | == Proposer's summary and declarations == | ||
| - | It should be more difficult to repeal a rule than to amend it, or to create a new one. We should endeavor to work within the framework that we create wherever possible, and only to remove a part of that framework when no other options are available. | + | *It should be more difficult to repeal a rule than to amend it, or to create a new one. We should endeavor to work within the framework that we create wherever possible, and only to remove a part of that framework when no other options are available. |
| + | *It has been modified for greater clarity with regard to "negate." | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Applejuicefool- Yes, you're new rule would "negate" [[207]] because it would render [[207]] effectless. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Juice- That scenario would in effect be an amendment to rule [[306]], and would thus require a super-majority. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:58, 24 November 2006 (EST) | ||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
| Line 18: | Line 23: | ||
"Any new rule that negates a previous rule is considered a repeal of the previous rule, and as such, requires a super-majority to pass." Doesn't an amendment to a rule in fact nagate a pervious rule as the previous rule is repealed and the new amendment takes the new number. Also I think that you intend a "Simple Majority" and not just a "Majority" to be needed to amend or propose new rules. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:29, 23 November 2006 (EST) | "Any new rule that negates a previous rule is considered a repeal of the previous rule, and as such, requires a super-majority to pass." Doesn't an amendment to a rule in fact nagate a pervious rule as the previous rule is repealed and the new amendment takes the new number. Also I think that you intend a "Simple Majority" and not just a "Majority" to be needed to amend or propose new rules. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:29, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | What does "negate" mean in this context? Does it mean "cause to be deleted from the current ruleset?" What if I come up with a new proposal that says "Each player has one vote for each letter in his or her user name, as listed on the census. This rule takes precedence over [[207]]." Would my new rule be considered to "negate" 207? (Hmm...not a bad idea, actually! (lol)) [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 20:47, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | At first I was not too keen on this. But now I think it would help all the lose ends the occour when we repeal rules.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:01, 24 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Okay, one more dilemma for ya. What happens if a proposal *partially* negates a rule, while leaving the rest of it intact? For example, a proposed new rule like, "Rule change proposals need not include the name of the player proposing them. This rule takes precedence over [[306]]." [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:26, 24 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think this rule will allow for quantity over quality. And therefore I am against it. If anything I'd rather hae super majority to make new rules and simple majority to change old ones. And you didn't even cover transmuting rules. It's to vague and even if it weren't I still don't like the idea. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:25, 25 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[109]] requires a unanimous "For" vote to transmute any rule, so it is not necessary to cover it in this proposal. Making a rule harder to adopt would not force players to think about the long term ramifications of their proposals. By making them harder to repeal we force ourselves to contemplate what situations would warrant said repeal, before we propose the rule. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:28, 25 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[109]] only deals with transmuting rules from immutable to mutable. There is nothing in the rules that say anything about mutable to immutable. Aside from the general being a rule change and rule changes need a simple majority. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:27, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | There has never been a rule concerning transmuting from mutable to immutable. Someone will have to propose one. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:19, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[103]] allows for transmutation from immutable to mutable, "and vice versa". [[109]] says imm to mut requires unanimous vote. There's nothing out of the ordinary about a transmutation from mutable to immutable, at the current time. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 15:09, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | This proposal was never intended to cover transmutation. I believe that transmutation is covered adequately by [[103]] and [[109]], if someone would like a rule specifically discussing transmutation from mutable to immutable, they can propose one, or they can request a ruling from the Judge when we have one. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:33, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | This is the final form of the proposal, please vote at this time. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:58, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 47: | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | ||
| + | # --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:58, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | #--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 20:00, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
# | # | ||
| Line 30: | Line 55: | ||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | ||
| - | # | + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST) |
| + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:27, 28 November 2006 (EST); (Sorry, just don't understand the point of this one). | ||
| + | # -- [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 09:43, 28 November {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC) | ||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Current revision as of 09:43, 28 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
- It should be more difficult to repeal a rule than to amend it, or to create a new one. We should endeavor to work within the framework that we create wherever possible, and only to remove a part of that framework when no other options are available.
- It has been modified for greater clarity with regard to "negate."
- Juice- That scenario would in effect be an amendment to rule 306, and would thus require a super-majority. --TomFoolery 10:58, 24 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
Add comments
But will someone not try to find a way to work around it? For example if 55% want the law passed they would create a new law, not repealing it, but rendering it useless or effectless.--Shivan 15:48, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Good Point. Maybe a change to the proposal that eliminates that would be good. --TomFoolery 16:55, 23 November 2006 (EST)
"Any new rule that negates a previous rule is considered a repeal of the previous rule, and as such, requires a super-majority to pass." Doesn't an amendment to a rule in fact nagate a pervious rule as the previous rule is repealed and the new amendment takes the new number. Also I think that you intend a "Simple Majority" and not just a "Majority" to be needed to amend or propose new rules. --Dayd 20:29, 23 November 2006 (EST)
What does "negate" mean in this context? Does it mean "cause to be deleted from the current ruleset?" What if I come up with a new proposal that says "Each player has one vote for each letter in his or her user name, as listed on the census. This rule takes precedence over 207." Would my new rule be considered to "negate" 207? (Hmm...not a bad idea, actually! (lol)) Applejuicefool 20:47, 23 November 2006 (EST)
At first I was not too keen on this. But now I think it would help all the lose ends the occour when we repeal rules.--Shivan 06:01, 24 November 2006 (EST)
Okay, one more dilemma for ya. What happens if a proposal *partially* negates a rule, while leaving the rest of it intact? For example, a proposed new rule like, "Rule change proposals need not include the name of the player proposing them. This rule takes precedence over 306." Applejuicefool 10:26, 24 November 2006 (EST)
I think this rule will allow for quantity over quality. And therefore I am against it. If anything I'd rather hae super majority to make new rules and simple majority to change old ones. And you didn't even cover transmuting rules. It's to vague and even if it weren't I still don't like the idea. --Dayd 15:25, 25 November 2006 (EST)
109 requires a unanimous "For" vote to transmute any rule, so it is not necessary to cover it in this proposal. Making a rule harder to adopt would not force players to think about the long term ramifications of their proposals. By making them harder to repeal we force ourselves to contemplate what situations would warrant said repeal, before we propose the rule. --TomFoolery 19:28, 25 November 2006 (EST)
109 only deals with transmuting rules from immutable to mutable. There is nothing in the rules that say anything about mutable to immutable. Aside from the general being a rule change and rule changes need a simple majority. --Dayd 11:27, 26 November 2006 (EST)
There has never been a rule concerning transmuting from mutable to immutable. Someone will have to propose one. --TomFoolery 12:19, 26 November 2006 (EST)
103 allows for transmutation from immutable to mutable, "and vice versa". 109 says imm to mut requires unanimous vote. There's nothing out of the ordinary about a transmutation from mutable to immutable, at the current time. Applejuicefool 15:09, 26 November 2006 (EST)
This proposal was never intended to cover transmutation. I believe that transmutation is covered adequately by 103 and 109, if someone would like a rule specifically discussing transmutation from mutable to immutable, they can propose one, or they can request a ruling from the Judge when we have one. --TomFoolery 15:33, 26 November 2006 (EST)
This is the final form of the proposal, please vote at this time. --TomFoolery 15:58, 26 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
- --TomFoolery 15:58, 26 November 2006 (EST)
- --Tucana25 20:00, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Against
- --Dayd 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 00:27, 28 November 2006 (EST); (Sorry, just don't understand the point of this one).
- -- Simulacrum 09:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
